Taking a Journey with the Apostle John – Part XIV

Comment

Comment by Leonard T on April 9, 2015 at 3:28am

He is our substitute in that He took our sin upon Himself and paid the penalty that was due us that we could never have paid. The cross is where it was paid, but it was His cross to bear for mankind from beginning to end. If not for He who knew no sin taking on our sin we would have faced judgment and eternal condemnation. I would not focus so much on the location, but rather on the transaction. He died for my sin ... His death paid my debt and released me from my pending judgment.

Comment by Leonard T on April 8, 2015 at 7:02pm

To be fair there are times that we may use the illustration of we should have been on the cross and not Jesus. Great illustration when referring to the fact that we deserved that punishment, but it technically is not Biblical nor was it ever my cross ... it was always His. He took my penalty and paid for it, but he did that for multitudes of other people. His payment was far greater than for one life while we could not even put a dent in the dent for our own life .

Comment by Leonard T on April 8, 2015 at 6:57pm

No, not us. It has always been about Him dying on the cross for us. We were not destined to a cross, but to hell (and then the Lake of Fire) for eternity. The cross was His. His shed blood was His. The substitutionary sacrifice does not literally mean we were destined to the cross, but that we had a debt to be paid that we could not pay and Jesus stood in the gap for us. He had to take our sins upon Himself and He did so paying the debt through His shed blood. For me I see no paradox there. Before the foundations of the world ... the Lamb of God was slain. The cross was in sight for Jesus before the breath of life was breathed into Adam.

Comment by Leonard T on April 8, 2015 at 6:35pm

No sarcasm. Remember I read the word of God at face value (some would call literal). If it is an account I see it as an account ... history as history ... poetry as poetry ... symbolism as symbolic ... allegory as allegoric ... etc. There are times when these various views intersect as you may find symbolism in the poetry. So you want to examine the style and always attempt to find the plain meaning and when the plain meaning is absurd them it must be something else (i.e. symbolism). The problem is, again, that many will pick one style and seek to use that as their base hermeneutic approach. Again, I know plenty who read the whole of God's Word (cover to cover) as allegoric. With that said, regardless of the style you will always seek to extract "principles for life" (I think I have heard that some where before  ... plug ... plug ... plug :-)

Comment by Leonard T on April 8, 2015 at 6:18pm

The article is good. It makes a great point regarding absurdity.

Comment by Leonard T on April 8, 2015 at 5:34pm

No need to be sorry, You need to search these things out if you have questions. In this case the questions you are asking I cannot be much help because I am not looking for the symbolism or allegory in this account. I see it as a straightforward account to be read as such.

Comment by Leonard T on April 8, 2015 at 5:04pm

Adam Clarke's Commentary:

Matthew 27:15

The governor was wont to release - Whence this custom originated among the Jews is not known, - probably it was introduced by the Romans themselves, or by Pilate, merely to oblige the Jews, by showing them this public token of respect; but if it originated with him, he must have had the authority of Augustus; for the Roman laws never gave such discretionary power to any governor.

Comment by Leonard T on April 8, 2015 at 4:48pm

I am not misunderstanding. I get where you are coming from.

The account of His death, burial and resurrection are not allegoric, but literal ... yet, many (not saying you) will turn it into an allegory in that they will seek to interpret the text looking for hidden meaning rather than seeing it at face value. In hermeneutics an allegoric interpretation looks for the hidden meaning. In Scripture there are things that are symbolic, some allegoric, some poetry, some history. Each is read accordingly. It is when we take history, for example, and seek to read it (apply hermeneutic) allegorically that we get into trouble. This misapplication by many, IMO, leads to a lot of the division over what the Word of God says.

Keep in mind that the release was a tradition of the Roman government, not the Jews, that was done at this time. Both were slated to die, not just one. Jesus did not replace Barabbas, but rather the people when given a choice called for the release of Barabbas over Jesus.

Comment by Leonard T on April 8, 2015 at 4:26pm

There is nothing wrong with reading an allegory as allegoric, The problem for me is when people take things that are not allegorically and seek to make it allegoric. There are plenty, including whole groups, who read all of Scripture through allegoric lenses. From a hermeneutic point of view allegoric is more than story telling ... it seeks to find a hidden meaning behind the plain presentation.

Regarding Barabbas we find that there were two scheduled for death. Only because of the tradition of releasing one prisoner at this particular time was he released, Thus, technically Jesus did not replace Barabbas, but rather we see that mankind when given the choice of Jesus or worldly man they chose worldly man over Jesus.

Comment by Leonard T on April 8, 2015 at 3:36pm

You should not drop it just because I do not see it articulated in Scripture. For me the difference is that we clearly see that substitution illustrated in a couple of places ... specifically in the account of Abraham and Isaac. We know that the OT tells us of the value of the blood sacrifice. To me these fit into the frame work of face value. Again, IMO, some of what you are pointing out could be symbolic, but I think it leans toward allegoric. Symbolism, as you know, is simply representative of something else. Allegoric looks for a hidden meaning behind the plain presentation.

Lord Bless,

LT

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page